According to those governments/entities, the only “positive use” for AI as far as social media and online discourse go, would be to power more effective censorship (“moderation”).

A new report from the US House Judiciary Committee and its Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government puts the emphasis on the push to use this technology for censorship as the explanation for the often disproportionate alarm over its role in “disinformation.”

We obtained a copy of the report for you here.

The interim report’s name spells out its authors’ views on this quite clearly: the document is called, “Censorship’s Next Frontier: The Federal Government’s Attempt to Control Artificial Intelligence to Suppress Free Speech.”

The report’s main premise is well-known – that AI is now being funded, developed, and used by the government and third parties to add speed and scale to their censorship, and that the outgoing administration has been putting pressure on AI developers to build censorship into their models.

What’s new are the proposed steps to remedy this situation and make sure that future federal governments are not using AI for censorship. To this end, the Committee wants to see new legislation passed in Congress, AI development that respects the First Amendment and is open, decentralized, and “pro-freedom.”

The report recommends legislation along four principles, focused on preserving American’s right to free speech. The first is that the government cannot be involved when decisions are made in private algorithms or datasets regarding “misinformation” or “bias.”

The government should also be prohibited from funding censorship-related research or collaboration with foreign entities on AI regulation that leads to censorship.

Lastly, “Avoid needless AI regulation that gives the government coercive leverage,” the document recommends.

The Committee notes the current state of affairs where the Biden-Harris administration made a number of direct moves to regulate the space to its political satisfaction via executive orders, but also by pushing its policy through by giving out grants via the National Science Foundation, once again, aimed at building AI tools that “combat misinformation.”

But – “If allowed to develop in a free and open manner, AI could dramatically expand Americans’ capacity to create knowledge and express themselves,” the report states.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The Transparency in Bureaucratic Communications Act, introduced by Republican Senator Eric Schmitt, would have inspectors general (IGs) inform Congress in detail about any communication, and circumstances of that communication, between the agencies these watchdogs are in charge of, and companies benefiting from Section 230 protections.

We obtained a copy of the bill for you here.

Judging by a press statement by Schmitt, the concern is that, even with the government accused of such collusion now on its way out, what he refers to as “the deep state” might still continue to “work” with Big Tech.

“The incoming Republican Congress cannot allow deep-state bureaucrats to continue censoring the free speech of our constituents any longer (…) We will find the bureaucratic rot and we will rip it out,” Schmitt stated.

At the same time, the senator urged that “the full extent” of the censorship carried out during the previous administration must continue to be exposed.

Schmitt was behind the 2022 Missouri v. Biden lawsuit, filed in his then capacity as the state’s attorney general, which eventually reached the Supreme Court as Murthy v. Missouri. This case concerned allegations of unconstitutional government collusion with tech companies with the goal of censoring Americans.

Now, Schmitt’s proposed bill also requires that inspectors general – there are currently 74 of those – provide “a comprehensive reporting of all communications on content moderation, user content, and communications related to these (Section 230 protected) companies’ algorithms.”

Although the Supreme Court eventually ruled that Murthy v. Missouri lacked standing, the case brought crucial attention to the issue of online censorship, in the ways it involves the government.

When Elon Musk in 2022 acquired Twitter and then decided to release what turned out to be a damning trove of internal documents, the public had the chance to further learn how the administration leaned on tech companies to censor.

Third parties – various “fact-checking,” “rating,” etc. groups – effectively played the role of intermediaries to bypass constitutional prohibitions.

Even during the previous administration, House Republicans in particular sought to shed light on these practices, including through a Judiciary Committee investigation, which at one point even had Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that the government put pressure on the giant to censor, saying it was “wrong.”

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

Schmidt, who played a pivotal role in shaping the digital world, including the carelessness when it comes to online privacy, asserted that the original developers of social media did not foresee its potential negative impacts on democratic values. “None of us thought when we invented social media that we would become a threat to democracy,” Schmidt said.

In his critique, Schmidt called out social media companies for their allegedly lax approach to “misinformation,” suggesting that their failure to police content stemmed from a lack of regulatory compulsion and was driven by profit motives. “The misinformation one is easy,” Schmidt explained, claiming that “the social media companies have chosen not to police it because they haven’t been required to and they make more money because of it.”

However, Schmidt’s stance will raise concerns among free speech advocates who argue that his call for more stringent regulation could lead to excessive censorship and infringe on free expression. Critics argue that the solution to “misinformation” should not rely solely on increased regulation and censorship, but by encouraging open discourse that allows ideas to be debated and scrutinized in the public space.

Schmidt has been a controversial figure in privacy and surveillance discussions. His leadership saw Google vastly expand its data collection, using personal information to tailor advertisements, which raised significant privacy concerns. Schmidt’s views on privacy, epitomized by his statement, “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place,” showed a dismissive attitude toward privacy concerns and alarmed both privacy advocates and the public.

Schmidt’s tenure also involved privacy breaches, such as the unauthorized collection of data from unsecured WiFi networks by Google Street View cars, leading to international fines and investigations. Further controversy stemmed from Google’s alleged cooperation with the US National Security Agency (NSA), sharing user data without clear user consent.

Schmidt has, more recently said there should be no online anonymity when using AI.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

The former US secretary of state joined New York Governor Kathy Hochul on a panel during the Conference on Cyber Regulation, organized by Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs, to single out SAFE, and also the Child Data Protection Act as positive developments, that both agreed need to be followed up with federal legislation along the same lines.

Yet critics have been cautioning lawmakers not to “sneak in” sweeping surveillance and censorship in the same package with efforts to protect children on the internet, as well as that laws requiring age verification are “incompatible with privacy and free expression rights for everyone.”

But Clinton commended Hochul during the conference held last week for the two “landmark” bills and wondered if more states could follow in New York’s footsteps since what would clearly be Clinton’s preferred route – the federal government and Congress – are not doing that.

In an ideal world, Hochul responded, “These would all be national federal policies” – and went on to assert that tech companies running social platforms should have implemented those policies on their own. […]

— Read More: reclaimthenet.org

This incident sheds light on the broader implications of the fight against online “misinformation,” particularly how premature labeling of claims can potentially suppress legitimate grievances and criticisms that later prove to have been based on some truth, something that happened often in 2020 and the Covid era.

The controversy surrounding a FEMA employee who allegedly directed a relief team to ignore homes displaying support for then-Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has sparked outrage and demands for a thorough investigation by legislators. As first reported by The Daily Wire, the employee, who has now been fired, instructed team members to bypass these homes, an action condemned by FEMA administrator Deanne Criswell as a “clear violation of FEMA’s core values & principles to help people regardless of their political affiliation.”

Criswell’s confirmation of the dismissal came through a post on X, following online reports about the employee’s conduct. While she didn’t specify which hurricane’s relief efforts were affected, ABC News and The New York Times reported it was during the aftermath of Hurricane Milton in Florida. This hurricane struck shortly after the catastrophic Hurricane Helene.

The rush to curb the spread of misinformation online is a top priority for many pro-censorship platforms and legacy institutions claiming to protect public discourse from false narratives. However, this incident exemplifies the complexities and risks inherent in these efforts. Initially, the claims regarding any of FEMA’s discriminatory practices were quickly categorized as baseless and part of an online misinformation campaign. This not only stifled debate but potentially delayed the scrutiny necessary to uncover and address any wrongdoing.

But at least as far as words, “mother” and “father” are concerned, this inclusivity seems to, paradoxically, work by exclusion.

Gone are the days when Word offered spelling and grammar checks. Now, for people who like their writing software to nudge and prod them during the writing process by suggesting “more suitable” replacements, Word has something called “Inclusivity Checker.”

The repository of terms contained in the tool, that are recommended to be replaced, is only growing.

A modern update takes a dim view of the expression “maternity leave” on “gender-inclusivity” grounds, and suggests that it be replaced with “birth-related leave,” “parental leave,” or “childbirth leave.”

Fathers who go on paternity leave should instead be described as taking “child-bonding leave,” Microsoft thinks. All this is explained as a way to make sure that the writer is inclusive of “all genders.”

Is all this really necessary? Microsoft thinks it is. According to the Free Speech Union, one of the terms writers who, for some reason, use Word are advised to replace is Postman Pat: it should be “Postal Worker Pat,” according to those behind this effort.

In that case, the intent is to avoid the possibility of gender bias. The same goes for “biologically female” – a phrase best avoided, according to Microsoft.

The feature is at this time not hard-coded into Word: the software is “inclusive” of both opt-ins (this seems to be the default) and opt-outs. “Problematic” words are underlined in blue and then recommended alternatives pop up.

Right now, there is no auto-correct function, either. But, if critics compare this sort of thing as moving ever closer to Orwell’s dark dystopian world ruled by extreme censorship and government control – one never knows what’s around the corner.

And if you don’t like it, and thought you might switch to, oh, Google Docs? Bad news: this giant also has a similar feature, introduced in 2022.

Google frowns at terms such as “housewife” and “landlord” and would rather you write, “stay-at-home spouse” and, “property owner.”

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.

It is a dark place of “AI” (machine learning, ML) mass surveillance, which Ellison wants to make sure is served by his company by way of providing the fundamental infrastructure. It isn’t irrelevant to this story that Oracle’s portfolio also includes multi-decade contacts with the US government.

Oracle is not often mentioned when Big Tech is talked about, but it is one of the biggest in the industry. The reason for staying out of the limelight is that, unlike its peers with big stakes in the social media space, Oracle’s business is database software and cloud computing.

This is the reason Ellison sees the opportunity to place his company, already involved in building AI models, at the center of producing the tools to make this nightmarish scenario of real-time ML-powered surveillance a reality.

Ellison spoke during the Oracle financial analyst gathering to suggest that the company’s databases will become indispensable for the AI infrastructure, and that proof for that is in companies like X and Microsoft having already picked Oracle to provide this service.

“Maximizing AI’s public security capabilities” is what’s on Ellison’s mind, and he decided to sell this by giving police accountability as an example.

The system would prevent police abuse, he said – but the way “AI” combined with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure arrives there is perplexing, to say the least. It involves police body cameras that are always recording (including in bathrooms, and during meals), always transmitting back to Oracle – and with no option to stop this feed.

“Every police officer is going to be supervised at all times” – that’s another way of putting it, and Ellison did.

But who would build such an expensive and elaborate surveillance system just to use it in law enforcement? Not Ellison.

The cops will be on their best behavior, but so will (the rest) of the citizens, he promised. “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting,” Ellison added.

If you’re tired of censorship and surveillance, subscribe to Reclaim The Net.